How do you know this? I’m just curious. I have not seen evidence of this.It was racism.
What racism and inequality did it highlight?What purpose when his murder has highlighted so much racism and inequality that exists in the world?
Thank you for posting the entire text.He was tone deaf in going on and on about the sins of George Floyd and then expressing doubts that racism is a problem. If he thinks these things privately he should have had the good sense not to express them due to his role as chaplain.
What do you mean by preferentialism? Googled it and it turns out to be some economic term.Stop trying to redefine the word racism. Racism is bad, explicitly or implicitly. Preferentialism is not.
It does sound like racism if your answer has something to do with race and not characterwho would you want to move in next to you? Who would you want your daughter to marry? Who would you want your boss to be at work? And if you were a policeman, would you be equally likely to shoot a black man or a white man in the back?
Where to start…you’re all over the place. “just because you don’t steal doesn’t mean you aren’t a thief.” What? If you wrote what you meant, you are of course correct. If I don’t steal, I’m not a thief. If I’m missing your point, enlighten me. But let’s assume I’m a kleptomaniac, i.e., I have an innate tendency to steal. But if I recognize that I have the tendency, I can fight it and not steal. Or take being an alcoholic. If I have a tendency to get drunk at every party I go to, I am clearly an alcoholic. I could deny this and continue getting drunk at every party, or I could recognize my tendency and adjust my actions accordingly, say by limiting myself to three beers at each party.No, this is ridiculous. This is like saying, just because you don’t steal doesn’t mean you aren’t a thief. Well, actually, yes it does, it does mean I’m not a thief. In our system of jurisprudence, criminality is defined by conduct. Broadening out a definition to the extent that it no longer has any meaningful application does not solve racism.
I don’t think the term “racist” should be used randomly, as it seems to be today. Today most people use the term “racist” to describe explicit racism. If I deny you a job, a house, or a loan just because you are a certain ethnicity, that is racism–explicit racism. And I’ve watched senators, mayors, and chiefs of police say “I’m not racist.” They are probably sincere. But what they are REALLY saying is “I have never been explicitly racist.” What they are NOT saying is the truth–“I am am implicitly racist. Everyone is. White, black, Japanese, Chinese, whatever. I recognize that, and I consciously allow for this bias in all my actions.” But they all want to deny–as many here do–that they are implicitly racist. And in that case implicit racism will guide their decisions. And they won’t realize it. Sad…So when someone is called a “racist,” with no qualifier in front of it, what do you suppose the definition is?
Yes it does. If you are Iranian and the real estate agent says to you “I’ve got an Iranian and a Russian who have offers on the house next door. Which one would you prefer to live next door?” The Iranian would almost always choose another Iranian. Which is why we have ethnic neighborhoods, now and in the past. This is implicit racism. It’s not necessarily bad, but it can be.You are describing something called implicit bias. An explicit bias for a particular ethnicity or culture is called ethnocentrism. Neither necessarily involve racism.
Who is talking about “an act”? Not me. Implicit racism is a subconscious preference, not an “act.” It can reveal itself in acts–for example preferring a next door neighbor of the same ethnic group.By definition there is no subconscious act that can be described as an ism .
And your point is? “Implicit racism” is definition #2, “an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.” I agree. So what?Definition of ism
1 a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief
Those of us (no, we’re not on Fox, we’re on all the other channels) who use the term “implicit racism” are NOT “redefining” the word “racism.” We’re simply pointing out that there are two different kinds, explicit and implicit. If I used the word “school” and pointed out that there are both private and public schools, am I “redefining” the word “school”? I don’t think so.The problem is that this is all a redefinition of the term “racist.” “Racist” historically meant “hate or discrimination based solely on the color of one’s skin”
Now you are making up your own definition. Germans and Slavs are both Europeans. But I recall Hitler had some rather nasty things to say about Slavs. Racist things. How about Jews? Are we going to say they are not Europeans? My parents had rather nasty nicknames for virtually every European group that wasn’t their own. Racist? You bet. If you want to call it “ethnicism” be my guest, but it’s really racism. And the bit about being successful, etc.? I don’t buy it. You know what the richest ethnic group is in the US, don’t you? Indians. Are they discriminated against? Just ask them.This hatred wasn’t “racist” because they were all Europeans.
Um…again, I must be missing something here. Let me quote from p. 3 (!) of your document: “What Is Racism? Racism arises when—either consciously or unconsciously—a person holds that his or herI have to agree with Phil that that is kind of a redefinition. I suggest reading the USCCB statement on racism.
Why are black people seen this way in the first place? Because of racism.classism is what African Americans mostly experience & can eliminate by assimilating into the mainstream, middle class. Booker T. Washington felt that if Black people were known as hard workers, intelligent, and efficient, etc.; then people would subconsciously associate them with hard workers, intelligent, and efficient when they subconsciously judged them based on their looks.
If someone makes that assumption against the whole ethnic group, that’s racist too. Because you’re judged on the color of your skin.If your ethnic group is considered poor, people (not just white Americans) are going to discriminate against your group
Not only does implicit racial bias exist, every one of us has it! Again, it’s natural. In itself it’s neither good nor bad. It’s simply a fact. “Blatant racism” = explicit racism. “accusing good, honest people of racism…” but not necessarily of explicit racism. Implicit racism, yes. It’s not an “accusation” it’s descriptive. We all have hands. Is that evil? Can we do good with our hands? Sure. Can we do evil? Sure.I agree with those who say that implicit racial bias still exists, just as blatant racism still exists in many places and in many groups. However, accusing good, honest people of racism without any actual evidence of the charge only serves, in my opinion, to pit groups against each other, promoting new segregation, rather than grounding our identity in Christ and in the natural law which we all share as rational human beings made in God’s image.
And here you are saying exactly what I’ve been saying: “ALL people have…” Yes, we do.All people have shadowy biases and prejudices which they have accrued from illogical thinking and skewed judgment.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Just because you have an innate tendency that doesn’t mean you have to act on it. You can “overcome the biases we have…” Absolutely. But if you DENY you have biases, then you can’t overcome something you don’t think existsHowever, being rational creatures, we have the ability to overcome whatever biases we have lurking in our heart and can learn to think more clearly and according to truth and reality. We should question all our implicit biases and submit them to our careful, higher intellect, and not our flighty emotions and hasty perceptions.
Again, pointing out that there are two distinct types of racism is not redefining it. If you start using the word “elephant” and I come along and say “Wait, which one do you mean? Indian elephant or African elephant?” have I “redefined” “elephant”? Come on now. I think YOU are redefining “racism” by using the word “preferentialism” instead of “implicit racism.” As with the word “bias” it’s not as accurate because it could have a much broader meaning than “ethnic / racial group preference.” You might prefer straight hair and not curly hair, brown eyes vs. blue eyes, etc. None of which are relevant to racism.Stop trying to redefine the word racism. Racism is bad, explicitly or implicitly. Preferentialism is not.
I disagree. Racism is an attitude or belief not a preference for a neighbor whom you may have something in common with. An attitude or belief is not something unconscious unless it is taught and simply not realized, which it is then the definition of an implicit bias.If you are Iranian and the real estate agent says to you “I’ve got an Iranian and a Russian who have offers on the house next door. Which one would you prefer to live next door?” The Iranian would almost always choose another Iranian. Which is why we have ethnic neighborhoods, now and in the past. This is implicit racism. It’s not necessarily bad, but it can be.
All right, let’s bring some reality to the discussion. When did the term “implicit racism” first start appearing? 1960. Its usage peaked about 1998 and has been declining. Google Ngram ViewerIt’s not productive to start redefining things for a political purpose.
Wait a second…can’t a “preference” be an “attitude or belief”? I prefer chocolate cake over sponge cake…don’t I “believe” that I like chocolate cake better? Isn’t that a “preference”? Of course it is.Racism is an attitude or belief not a preference
Depends on what you mean by “taught.” Say you like football. Did someone ever sit you down and “teach” you to like football? You are “taught” constantly by the world around you; your observations and experiences. So in that sense, yes, “an attitude or belief” is “taught.” But of course you could also do it formally–a Communist “re-education camp” for example! Or a catechism class…An attitude or belief is not something unconscious unless it is taught and simply not realized, which it is then the definition of an implicit bias.
I’ve explained that over and over. Here’s another try: Let’s say that you love taking risks. You speed, you skydive, you rock climb, etc. You have an “implicit” lack of fear. But you say to yourself “I don’t like risking my life more than anyone else. Everyone feels the way I do.” Then I suspect you will come to a bad end…either injure yourself badly or die. On the other hand you could say to yourself “I have this implicit lack of fear that leads me to take risks that are foolhardy. I need to objectively evaluate situations before I dive in.” And you live. If you have implicit racism–and you do–you will make no attempt to compensate for it. If you recognize it exists, you can do something about it. Let’s say you go to the company lunchroom and always sit with blacks (you’re black yourself). But if you recognize your implicit racism, you could go sit with the white folks once in a while–a conscious decision.I don’t see how trotting out implicit (fill in the blank for your argument) is meaningful in any way.
You cannot be a kleptomaniac and not steal. That literally violates the definition of kleptomaniac which is a person who is incapable of resisting urges to steal. The term is defined by what you do.But let’s assume I’m a kleptomaniac, i.e., I have an innate tendency to steal. But if I recognize that I have the tendency, I can fight it and not steal.
Again, the urge to drink an alcoholic beverage does not make one an alcoholic. An alcoholic is someone who is incapable of resisting those urges and does drink excessively on frequent occasion. By your example, you tacitly admit that it is the tendency to act on those urges that makes you an alcoholic. In other words you just stated that your alcoholism is defined by your action.Or take being an alcoholic. If I have a tendency to get drunk at every party I go to, I am clearly an alcoholic.
I agree, those are probably not the best examples. But I think you still understand what I’m saying–you have some impulse to do something, and by recognizing that impulse, you can consciously try to control it. Over-eating? Anorexia? Fear of dogs? The criticism of certain examples may be valid, but it doesn’t invalidate the concept.you used two examples of something defined by actions to say that you don’t have to perform those actions to meet the definition of the term.